ISP's Five Strikes Plan: Railroading, MPAA/RIAA-Style

from the guilty-until-proven-innocent dept

Another day, and more questions are being raised about the "voluntary" (if you consider the US government telling ISPs they had better agree to something, "voluntary") agreement by ISPs to act as copyright cops and punish people accused (not convicted) of infringement. We already have a big issue with any plan that's based on accusations, rather than convictions. If the history of the DMCA has taught us anything, it's that people abuse these accusations regularly, and it can create massive unintended consequences and chilling effects. It's sad that ISPs would agree to such a program in the first place, but the details keep making it seem even worse.

We've already pointed out that it'll cost you $35, if you want to protest your innocence, but that's just the beginning. You see, you can't just protest your innocence. Oh no. That would be way too forgiving. Instead, you're limited to one of only six defenses, which some have pointed out fall way short of what copyright law allows. In other words, even if you aren't violating someone's copyright, just because you're accused of doing so, you might not even effectively be able to show that you're innocent, if your defense isn't one of the six official ones.

That's pretty ridiculous.

The official (misnumbered -- there's no fifth defense) list is as follows:

(i) Misidentification of Account - that the ISP account has been incorrectly identified as one through which acts of alleged copyright infringement have occurred.

(ii) Unauthorized Use of Account - that the alleged activity was the result of the unauthorized use of the Subscriber’s account of which the Subscriber was unaware and that the Subscriber could not reasonably have prevented.

(iii) Authorization - that the use of the work made by the Subscriber was authorized by its Copyright Owner.

(iv) Fair Use - that the Subscriber’s reproducing the copyrighted work(s) and distributing it/them over a P2P network is defensible as a fair use.

(vi) Misidentification of File - that the file in question does not consist primarily of the alleged copyrighted work at issue.

(vii) Work Published Before 1923 - that the alleged copyrighted work was published prior to 1923.

Take, for example, that last one. Note that it doesn't say "work is in the public domain." It just says "work was published before 1923," meaning that the work is probably (though, with sound recordings, not definitely) in the public domain. Why not just have a defense that says "work is in the public domain"? There are works that were published after 1923 that are in the public domain -- including works that people put into the public domain, or other works that were published after 1923 and before 1978, which didn't have a copyright notice (among some other options). So why aren't those allowed as defenses?

It appears that you can get into serious trouble here even if you're sharing public domain works.

Even worse, the plan says that you can use the defense that you have an open WiFi network only once:

Except as set forth herein, this defense may be asserted by a Subscriber only one (1) time to give the Subscriber the opportunity to take steps to prevent future unauthorized use of the Subscriber’s account. Any subsequent assertion of this defense by a Subscriber shall be denied as barred, unless the Subscriber can show by clear and convincing evidence that the unauthorized use occurred despite reasonable steps to secure the Internet account and that the breach of such security could not reasonably have been avoided.

This assumes that open WiFi is a mistake, rather than a choice. There are plenty of good reasons why one might want to offer an open WiFi connection, and there are ways to do so safely. But under this plan, they could get in trouble for it, despite it being perfectly legal.

So, let's see: under this plan, people are guilty until proven innocent, they have to pay to protest their innocence, their "defenses" are greatly limited, they can still get in trouble for sharing public domain content... and they can get in trouble for offering a perfectly legitimate open WiFi network. I'm curious how that's helping to "win the future," as IP Czar Victoria Espinel stated in response to this "voluntary" deal.

You can put "we are not responsible for errors due to gross negligence" in the Terms of Service all you want, but it's only going to protect you so far. Especially when you get to areas like the regions with artificially enforced exclusivity contract monopolies such as the ones Comcast has(among other companies).

But this is EXACTLY what you wanted

When they were doling out $150,000 penalties, you kept complaining that the price tag was just SOOOO unfair for the lazy couch potatoes who were too cheap to pay $1 for a song.

So now they've lowered the price tag to $35 and you've found new reasons to squalk.

Face it. The file sharing cheapskates are the most coddled law breakers ever. Have you ever tried to protest a speeding ticket or a parking ticket? The judge doesn't want to hear it. You're presumed guilty and with good reason. Most of the time there's actual evidence that you broke the law. It may not be perfect, but it's evidence. And that's the same thing that's going on here.

Once again, I'm asking you to spell out the procedures that should be used to prosecute the lazy, cheapskate losers who are downloading music or movies because they're too cheap to pay. You said that $150,000. Now I'm guessing you want Lance Ito to give every one of your precious little snow flakes a year long, OJ-grade trial because there's a slim chance that maybe, perhaps the router made a mistake when it delivered all of that copyrighted material the wrong machine.

The fact is that there are people on death row who were convicted on less evidence than is available here. So what standard of proof do you want? Are you actually arguing that they should mobilize the SWAT teams to search the home to make sure there wasn't someone leeching on the free wifi? Be careful what you wish for because this latest plan is exactly what you wanted. You might get the SWAT teams too!

I'm puzzled... who gets to submit an accusation, and by what method? What safeguards would be in place to avoid a denial of service attack against someone (e.g., a script that generates ten bogus complaints against a target account, theoretically forcing that account's immediate disconnection in order to protect the ISP)?

Let me swear for once.

Ok, I'll have to say this and forgive my language, but FUCK this law.

I'll break the law willingly, gladly and proudly, especially unfair and horrible laws like this. It's called civil disobedience, and I'll proudly be civil disobedient. I will not follow these kinds of stupid orders. Fuck the law and those who defend it.

As for the one time limitation - just claim you launched an (obviously inefective) education campaign for users of your open wireless, along with a 'mitigation' policy. If it's good enough for them, it should be good enough for you.

I'm wondering how difficult it will be for "hacktivists" to generate false positives, either targeting specific individuals or neighborhoods (wealthy negihborhoods around Washington DC should be good for a hoot) or just random USA IP addresses.

The Scientologists should also be good at using this as a weapon, whether people are posting their secret documents or just engaging in citizen journalism.

Was there an exception in the agreement for businesses which offer public wi-fi, such as coffeeshops and hotels?

"Attorney General John Ashcroft ordered the death penalty sought in a Brooklyn case last spring even though federal prosecutors had recommended against it largely because of problems with a witness's identification of a murder suspect..."

"A MetroCard could be the deciding factor in the case of Jason Jones, who was arrested, along with his brother, in a fatal shooting in the Bronx in May, but told the police that he had been nowhere near the scene. Mr. Jones said he had left work, ridden the bus with some co-workers and cashed his paycheck, and later had taken a subway to see his girlfriend...."

Re: But this is EXACTLY what you wanted

Let me accuse you of copyright infringement... Since accusation is more than enough for you, surely you wouldn't mind shelling over $35 to prove your innocense.

1) Can you assert that that comment wasn't by you?
2) Or that someone broke into your account and left that comment?
3) That you were authorized to make that comment that quite clearly infringed on my copyright?
4) That your comment was fair use of my copyright?
6) That your comment did not consist primarily of my copyrighted material (remember I only accuse you, so you don't necessarily know what kind of copyrighted material I'm talking about)
7) That my material was actually published before 1923 and therefore you could use it freely?

Hmmm, aside from a maybe at #6, you strike 0 for 6. Good luck, bye bye, see ya in the funny papers.

Re: But this is EXACTLY what you wanted

I agree. Posts like this are just hit pieces, written in part to stir up the locals, and in part because this is another threat to piracy, which is an integral part of the Techdirt business universe.

You know, when the piracy dies down and people tend to turn off their P2P software because they like having internet service, suddenly there isn't all that free distribution everyone was crowing about. All of a suddenly, infinite distribution goes away, replaced once again with a "pay for hosting" model that will make things somewhat less free again.

Hmmm. Perhaps I have figured out why Mike Masnick is so upset about this 5 strikes thing.

Re: Let me swear for once.

Marcel, that's part of the problem. This *isn't* a law. It's a private agreement between the ISP and the MPAA/RIAA. About the only way you could get this killed would be to show it's a violation of an existing law, like anti-trust law.
Other than that, once your ISP has agreed to it, and incorporated it into the terms of service, you're screwed. You either have to agree to accept this load of crap, or else you don't get an account with that ISP. Given the list of companies signed up for it, that would mean no broadband access to the internet.

Re: But this is EXACTLY what you wanted

The fact is that there are people on death row who were convicted on less evidence than is available here. So what standard of proof do you want?

You answered your own question in the previous sentence. Conviction was the keyword.

The standard of proof needs be greater than a mere accusation.

Seriously, I can accuse you of all sorts of nasty things, but it doesn't mean any of them are true. And for each one of those nasty accusations I make up you need to cough up 35$ apiece to defend against them, ok?

Re: But this is EXACTLY what you wanted

You too are assuming everyone accused is infringing. Yes infringers will have a hard time proving their innocence or whining their way out of the accusation but so will those that are actually innocent.

Torrent clients regularly add random IP address to their results, people spoof their ip, and the monitoring software is sometimes wrong. So what about all the truly innocent people that get accused for these and other reasons? Is the collateral damage worth the results?

Free Money!

So, if Comcast ISP "accidentally" sends out 'you've been infringing!' notices to ALL of it's customers, and half of them pay the 'I didn't do it' fee, then Comcast receives an extra $35 x (customer base) x .5 = (let's see, Comcast has about 17 million internet subscribers, so that's...) $297,500,000

In one month. Wow, that's a nice bit of change. I'm sure they'd never be tempted to pull some bullshit maneuver like that...

Re: Re: Re: But this is EXACTLY what you wanted

Chris, every one of those things you list looks the same as network traffic. You can run but you really cannot hide, because if you hide the very nature of P2P falls apart. You have to be visible to some, and in the end, that means visible to enough people to be tracked down.

No matter how much you try, you cannot hide the elephant in the room. You and I both know it, only one of us admits it.

Is this primarily an anti-p2p deal?

P2P is stated in defense 4. Nowhere is downloading from a news group referred to, nor is there any mention of services like Rapidshare. Are they purposely avoiding these methods or is there simply no way of monitoring them yet? And is this an essentially anti-uploading deal with downloading not addressed? Whatever, I'd best start pricing low speed, capped internet plans, maybe even dial-up. After all, if one is going to get throttled sooner or later, might as well do it yourself and save some money in the process. Is the future of the wonderful internet nothing more than email, shopping and bill paying with maybe a little news item reading thrown in? If so, I don't think I need the most expensive tier any longer.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: But this is EXACTLY what you wanted

I didn't even consider deep packet inspections, why bother? Just look for people who are getting tons of income traffic from odd places, and tons of requests for connection from odd places, etc. P2P is way too obvious, networkwise.

Re: But this is EXACTLY what you wanted

"The fact is that there are people on death row who were convicted on less evidence than is available here. "

And sometimes those actually innocent people are executed, and the State does everything they can to cover it up. And sometimes they get proven innocent, and the State complains that they should have to compensate the wrongfully convicted.

And while your touting their amazing system, I refer you to the University that as a test got a laser printer "framed" for sharing the movie "The Matrix", on multiple occasions.

This "agreement" screws the consumer, and claims media companies can not be wrong... ever. ISHTAR. Nuff said.

Oh and if you want to tell me the technology has gotten foolproof since the university tests, one of the latest megafilings on behave of USCG includes the ip address 8.8.8.8 - one of Google's public DNS.

This all happened because of the current administrations ideal belief that IP is our most valuable asset. Yet on paper a harry potter film lost 600+ million dollars. How much tax revenue did we allow them to creatively remove from the system? How much more money do the people have to spent to protect a business model that no longer is viable? How many more of these bullshit things do we need to put up with?

Why are we only willing to prop up one failing industry? How soon until it is mandatory we all have to eat out once a week? All it takes is a Congresscritter having pockets stuff full of "donations" to float the idea.

Maybe if we took some of those "contributions" and used them to hire a reputable outside firm to create a report on the "actual" costs and impact of filesharing maybe there could be a clear picture that it is not the massive for profit industry media likes to claim it is.

Oh but they can't compete with free! Neither can for profit pirates, but we like to overlook this. A vast majority of filesharing is people sharing what they like, or trying to score "reputation" by being first to do something. That reputation and $5 might buy you and itty bitty coffee from Starbucks.

Shall we look at how Region 5 DVDs work? They are rushed to the presses to compete with the "professional" pirates in that region. The new releases are out much sooner than in Region 1, but we have to have arbitrary waiting periods in place to give theater owners and the pencil pushers warm fuzzies that they have extracted all of the possible revenue before starting the next phase.

Netflix shows a real dent into filesharing, and the media companies are doing everything they can to make it stop.
ISPs want it to stop because they still refuse to spend the money to create the sorely lacking infrastructure, living off of the interest they earn from those dollars the Government extracts on their behalf.
Media companies want it because they are aging dinosaurs, seriously the recording contracts still involve payments for the average rate of breakage for a VINYL album, and they think they are still in the business of selling 8 tracks rather than trying to sell the experience.

They are using an upside down reading of the DMCA to make this look like the ISPs were forced to do this to protect themselves, and they will tell you to move onto a different provider if you dislike it. Except then you have to remember we gave most of those providers basically monopolies over whole areas so there are no other options.

The only losers here are the people, we have a Government who wants to ignore the quasi legal enforcement of something that does not exist, based on technology that is flawed that eventually will be used to just cut people off from the internet. TSA sounded like an amazing idea on paper at first, but I am guessing you enjoy having your balls felt up.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: But this is EXACTLY what you wanted

Prone to abuse

So, if there is no penalty for allegations made in error/jest, doesn't this mean that people will file allegations of copyright infringement for almost anything? Won't the RIAA and MPAA be taken off the net because they have stolen someones words without obtaining authorization? Won't people file dozens, hundreds of notices against the heads of these organizations and make them pay the $35 per incident to clean up their record?

"This is an abomination." (c) 2011

(I am anticipating that these words will come out of the mouths of the MPAA head after he has been kicked off the net and I want to rub it in.)

Re: But this is EXACTLY what you wanted

"the lazy couch potatoes who were too cheap to pay $1 for a song."

Though I have no evidence to prove this (much like you with your statements), not many people only listen to, much less only download, one song. So they're not too cheap to pay a dollar for a song. They're likely not able to afford $40,000 for 40,000 or more songs.

"So now they've lowered the price tag to $35 and you've found new reasons to squalk."

That's for defending yourself against a potentially false accusation, not for getting legal downloads. That's the same price for falsely accused people, not just actual infringers.

"Face it. The file sharing cheapskates are the most coddled law breakers ever. Have you ever tried to protest a speeding ticket or a parking ticket? The judge doesn't want to hear it. You're presumed guilty and with good reason. Most of the time there's actual evidence that you broke the law. It may not be perfect, but it's evidence. And that's the same thing that's going on here."

Yes, I've fought a traffic ticket and the judge didn't have a problem with it. Your experience is not everyone's experience.

It is never good to presume guilt, especially on the flimsy evidence of an IP address, which judges have ruled is not able by itself to identify an infringer (http://torrentfreak.com/ip-address-not-a-person-bittorrent-case-judge-says-110503/).

"Once again, I'm asking you to spell out the procedures that should be used to prosecute the lazy, cheapskate losers who are downloading music or movies because they're too cheap to pay."

How about not prosecuting them at all?

But if you have to, try Sweden's approach (http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110221/02012413182/swedish-court-fines-file-sharer-about-300-sha ring-44-songs.shtml).

"The fact is that there are people on death row who were convicted on less evidence than is available here."

If that is the case, we need to rethink the death penalty.

"So what standard of proof do you want? Are you actually arguing that they should mobilize the SWAT teams to search the home to make sure there wasn't someone leeching on the free wifi? Be careful what you wish for because this latest plan is exactly what you wanted. You might get the SWAT teams too!"

Yes, because we need to waste tax-payer money by sending armed thugs into the homes of non-violent people who allegedly violated civil laws on the basis of flimsy evidence. I don't think the SWAT team should be doing pot busts much less enforcing obsolete corporate business models at the point of a gun.

Thank you for making suggestions that make you look like a supporter of fascist authoritarian government policies. You did a better job than I ever could of making your claims sound absurd.

Excellent!

If this comes into effect, I'm going to find something really cool that uses the MIT licence (or similar), make it slightly cooler, strictly forbid anyone from downloading it and release it via lots of P2P, file locker and other sites. Then, when my slightly cooler product becomes massively popular, I can do my part in kicking half of America off the internet! Maybe I should buy some ISP shares first though...

Re: Re: Re: Re: But this is EXACTLY what you wanted

Of course not. The death penalty process sucks. But I honestly believe that most people in the system are trying pretty hard.

I'm just pretty satisfied that most of the people who get an automated file sharing ticket like this will be guilty. And those who aren't will be able to spend $35 and chalk it up to life in the big city. I'm guessing that this system will generate better justice than the death penalty system. So the lazy couch potatoes should stop whining. Justice costs money and -hint hint- you can't just download it and "share" someone else's justice.

This is what society does with speeding tickets, parking tickets and many other minor infractions. No one tries to do a great job because the taxpayer can't pay for all of the justice that Mike wants.

Unfortunately, this kind of minor infraction is just what everyone wanted.

Re: Re: Re: Re: But this is EXACTLY what you wanted

Right. My point is that even when there's a trial about a very serious matter, society doesn't do as good a job as the downloading records of the ISPs. Face it. The ISPs have pretty good evidence-- at least compared to the other crimes being adjudicated.

Re: Is this primarily an anti-p2p deal?

The broad sense I get is that the ISP deal is one part of a multi-pronged summer 2011 offensive on the part of Big Copyright. The ISP deal is intended to choke off BitTorrent and traditional P2P, where copies originate from residential users. The PROTECT IP act, or some similar variety of DNS cutoff and payment services cutoff, will be aimed at cyberlockers and Usenet services. Usenet will be interesting, as the Usenet services have solid case law precedents on their side -- google for "Harlan Ellison AOL" -- but under the COICA/Protect IP logic, Usenet services can be destroyed by seizing their domain name, even if the service is lawful.

In the big picture, what has happened is that big entertainment corporations now own the "last mile" to the home for most Americans, and so the big consumer ISPs are now fully on board with the idea of turning the internet into 10,000 channels of cable TV. For high speed connections, most Americans now have a choice between a traditional cable TV company, and a telephone company which wants to become a cable TV company.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: But this is EXACTLY what you wanted

Re: Re: But this is EXACTLY what you wanted

I'm sure the ISPs will be a bit more scientific about it. As much as I hate the speed cameras and the privacy problems they bring, I have to admit that they're pretty accurate. Sure, the cities try to game the system by making the yellows short, but the people have fought back successfully against this when they had a good case.

Using the word "accusation" for what the ISP is doing is kind of bogus. They're really going to be delivering fairly solid evidence, the sort that's normally going to be more than sufficient for a conviction. If there's a good pattern of providing good evidence, I don't see why we shouldn't save society the cost of thousands of copycat trials.

Re: Re: But this is EXACTLY what you wanted

Why stop at 1? Pick a suitably large number and there is no way the system can handle it. Accuse him of 10,000 copyright violations and he can have his net access back for the low, low price of $35,000.

Hell write a bot that accuses people you dislike of copyright infringement and you've basically got a way to kick them off the net forever.

Re: Re: But this is EXACTLY what you wanted

The ISPs won't be simply pulling names out of a hat and accusing people. They'll have solid evidence of connections to torrent sites and downloaded files. Most guilty parties don't want to go to trial when there's solid evidence-- they beg for a plea bargain. And that's sort of what the $35 is in a way.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: But this is EXACTLY what you wanted

This is not a fine like a traffic ticket, so your analogy is inherently flawed.

This is for filing a protest against an accusation. It doesn't absolve you of liability. It doesn't mean that anything you downloaded to that point is free and clear from a legal standpoint.

You are also wrong about justice. Justice, like freedom and other rights, is something that you secure by giving it away to others. That is, if you make sure other people's rights are protected, yours are more protected.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: But this is EXACTLY what you wanted

What evidence? They don't have evidence, and with this system there is no need to gather it, as there is NO government actor involved. There is zero accountability for falsely accusing someone, and a possible $35 incentive to do so. If you don't like it when your ISP decides to take an extra $35 from your account each month, your only option is to just not use the internet.

Re: Re: But this is EXACTLY what you wanted

Actually, not. And I see it the other way. I see all of the file "sharers" as Soviet types who just take the hard work of the creators without paying for it. They concoct some lame philosophy about information wanting to be free to get out of the guilt they should feel about taking someone's hard work without compensating them. And that was fairly common in the former Soviet Union, btw. Take a look at what Stalin did to the Kulacks.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: But this is EXACTLY what you wanted

Sure there is. A group of people who are false accused can always bring a class action suit against the ISP. And then we'll see the ISP bring forth the records that show the date and time that someone went to the torrent site.

I'm sure there will be a few glitches in the system, but I'm guessing that there will be no debate about 99% of the accusations.

Re: Re: Re: But this is EXACTLY what you wanted

Where did you find out what kind of evidence they are going to use, and how they are going to gather it? You seem to know a lot about the evidence they are going to use, but for the rest of us, all they are telling us is "Trust us." Until they take there evidence to court, it will only ever be a "accusation"

I wonder what volume of complaints per week Big Content has in mind? Bob, what would you consider to be an acceptable false positive rate, and volume? Remember that people who are opposed to you have a good chance of being able to manufacture false positives cheaply, anonymously and in bulk quantity.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: But this is EXACTLY what you wanted

I'd purposely run a TOR node just to screw with my ISP if this happens.

Either that, or host more Linux ISOs than the MPAA/RIAA can stake a stick at....

Sucks for them that I don't pirate films of music. I buy legit music CDs for the creative work I do. and rip songs off Shoutcast for my non-commercial personal use.. (and they are in separate directories, so I can keep them strait. Any lawyer would have a field day defending me from a false accusation.

Re: shame...

Once the youth of today who grew up on the Internet and enter politics things will change. We still have the old guard in office who fear technology and do not understand it. It may take a while but history has shown the old ways inevitably give way to the new and neither courts nor armies can stop it.

Re: Re: Re: But this is EXACTLY what you wanted

Given that bigger companies like Youtube, Twitter and Facebook already roll over when they get a DMCA takedown notice, do you really think that ISPs will be more scientific about it? You, sir, live in a dreamworld.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: But this is EXACTLY what you wanted

you know that going only by ip si 99% wrong, because someone can easyli crack the wifi and use that computer to download and thats only one method to downlaod and be acused without doing it, if i have to give an example is like u have a car, house or item that can be identified to you and can be used by everybody and you will never know it was used without you knowing, so are you telling me is ok to point to you for a crime that you didnt do just because that item is linked to you ?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: But this is EXACTLY what you wanted

What about business users connecting to the corporate network over a VPN? That's encrypted traffic that is perfectly legal. By your logic, using encrypted traffic means you are trying to hide illegal activity. This is clearly not always the case.

How would you decide what encrypted traffic is valid? Just going by the amount of encrypted traffic would be meaningless, as many VPN users will transfer large amounts of data.

Re: But this is EXACTLY what you wanted

But this is EXACTLY what you wanted

Um. No. It's not.

If you read this site and that's what you get out of it, you're not someone who is worth debating this issue with.

What I *want* are companies that don't treat their customers as criminals. What I *want* are for companies to understand that there are ways to make more money by embracing what their customers want and what the technology allows. What I *want* is for people to stop assuming that file sharing has to be negative. What I *want* is for people to recognize all the opportunities provided by new technologies, and all of the opportunities provided by listening to customers.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: But this is EXACTLY what you wanted

It is, but he's not interested in understanding that it is.

The fictional version of reality at work here is that "there is" or "there will be" a technical solution that will stop the copying and distribution of digital files.
Those who understand how the internet works, know that not only is there not, but it is simply not possible for there to be one.
The same way that every form of DRM gets broken as with BD+, time after time, faster and faster but the industry working apparently from the same mindset as our poor deluded poster here keeps shelling out money for the next version of BD+ having forced manufacturers to shell out money to incorporate BD+ and everyone carries on as if it makes one iota of difference.
As far as I can tell, the only money actually being lost, if not to piracy then at least in association with piracy is the money being lost on this pointless DRM which not only doesn't work to deter pirates but actively annoys real life paying customers.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: But this is EXACTLY what you wanted

Who is paying for this?

1) Will the 35 dollar fees pay the costs?

2) Are the costs passed down to the customers?

3) Are the investors of these ISPs picking up the tab?

4) Or is the RIAA and MPAA paying the costs?

My bet is on a combination of 1) and 2). No matter where you stand on piracy, if you do not intentionally infringe on the content of others, why should you have to pay for the costs of policing for infringing content?

Why isn't the Answer 4)? Why should we tolerate a situation where a group benefits (i.e. 4) but doesn't pay the costs of said benefit?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: But this is EXACTLY what you wanted

"A group of people who are false accused can always bring a class action suit against the ISP."

It should be against the infringement accuser. The ISP is merely responding to the accuser, the accuser should be the one liable for false accusations, not the ISP since the ISP is not the one making these accusations.

There should be (and I imagine there is) a requirement that the accuser not be anonymous, both to the ISP and to the accused, ahead of time.

but the penalties against false allegations are less than the penalties for infringement. IP is for the rich and the lazy, those that make money by contributing nothing to society, and the laws that protect the rich carry steeper penalties than the laws that protect society.

Re: But this is EXACTLY what you wanted

"When they were doling out $150,000 penalties, you kept complaining that the price tag was just SOOOO unfair for the lazy couch potatoes who were too cheap to pay $1 for a song.

So now they've lowered the price tag to $35 and you've found new reasons to squalk.

Face it. The file sharing cheapskates are the most coddled law breakers ever. Have "

Hey fuckwad, you DO realize that not everything, and indeed a very small amount, of movies, books, music etc is available to buy AT ALL, right? Its not about wanting it free or too cheap to pay, in many (most) cases, its THE FUCKING COMPANIES DONT PROVIDE A WAY TO BUY IT AT ALL. The caps are for you and your shill friends who need to be hit over the head HARD to understand this simple point.

Re: Re: Re: But this is EXACTLY what you wanted

I'm sure the Chinese government will be scientific about ensuring that their speech censorship regime only serves the public interest.

I'm sure cops will be scientific about searching peoples houses without a warrant if they were permitted to.

I'm sure when the government wiretaps people without a warrant, they will be scientific about it.

Sorry, that's not how due process works. People aren't guilty until proven innocent. They're not guilty because some random (government or other) entity, person, or corporation with a conflict of interest in the matter, like the Mafiaa, or an ISP, has determined that they are guilty. People are innocent until proven guilty, and they have to be proven guilty in a court of law. They aren't proven guilty at the random opinion of the Mafiaa (RIAA/MPAA) or at the random opinion of the the ISP.

Otherwise, I can claim that you're guilty of infringement because I went through a 'scientific process' of ensuring that you're guilty. Nonsense.

There is a process to convicting people, and that process doesn't involve people who have a vested interest in the matter making such determinations. That process involves an uninterested third party making these determinations. There is good reason for this. Otherwise, I can claim that my neighbor is guilty of stealing my keys just because I lost them and the scientific process that I went through to determine that he stole them is that I looked everywhere and couldn't find them. That's not how due process works. Anyone can claim that they went through a scientific process to come to a conclusion. Just like anyone can make up some random, unaccredited, university that anyone can get a PhD from and become a professor. But for that university, and the degrees it grants, to be taken seriously, there is a stricter process involved. Likewise, for someone to be considered guilty and disciplined, a random scientific process that some ISP or the Maffia made up is not enough.

Now, you may argue that in a free market an ISP should have every right to deny people of service if they choose. and I completely agree. Except that we do not live in a free market. We live in a market plagued with government established monopolies. As such, we need to ensure that people are innocent until proven guilty and that they can't get kicked off the Internet a moment before being proven guilty, in a court of law.

Re: But this is EXACTLY what you wanted

"When they were doling out $150,000 penalties, you kept complaining that the price tag was just SOOOO unfair for the lazy couch potatoes who were too cheap to pay $1 for a song.

So now they've lowered the price tag to $35 and you've found new reasons to squalk. "

You really are a moron. Then again, what do I expect out of IP maximists. These people are meritless, incompetent, selfish losers.

Seriously, are you that dumb? $35 is not the lowering of the penalties. The penalties are the same. $35 is part of the cost of protesting your innocence. If you are found guilty, you can still pay the absurd penalties that have existed before. No penalties have been lowered.

Re: Is this primarily an anti-p2p deal?

P2P is stated in defense 4. Nowhere is downloading from a news group referred to, nor is there any mention of services like Rapidshare. Are they purposely avoiding these methods or is there simply no way of monitoring them yet?

There's no legal way of monitoring them and there's not likely to be.

When you use Usenet or Rapidshare, your computer makes a direct connection to the servers at the other end. Well, to be technical, it goes through several "hops" to get there, but each one is simply set up to pass the data along, they don't snoop on what that data is. Not only would this be a huge privacy violation, but the companies running them aren't interested in protecting the entertainment industry, their job is just to pass data back and forth.

Because of this, there's no publicly accessible point at which a third party can tap in and see what you're doing. It would be like tapping someone's phone. Sure, the government can claim that they have the right to do it whenever they want, but the RIAA can't just tap your phone to see if you're talking about pirated music.

Your ISP could theoretically monitor everything you do, but again, that would be a huge breach of privacy and would probably open them up to lawsuits. Plus, if you use SSL, they couldn't snoop on the contents anyway. They can check to see if you're connecting to a Usenet provider, or a service like Rapidshare, but that in itself isn't illegal.

The service can monitor what you're doing, but why would they? This would be another breach of privacy, and would just alienate their customers when they find out that they're being spied upon. Uploads can be tracked of course, but most services don't keep logs of what you download.

And is this an essentially anti-uploading deal with downloading not addressed?

Basically yes, for two reasons;

1. Uploads are much easier to track. When you use P2P software, your copy of the program broadcasts that you have specific files available for download. It has to or file sharing wouldn't work. If nobody announced that they had the files, there would be nothing for you to download. This information is freely available to anyone using that P2P network, including members of the entertainment industry. It's like being at a trading party where each person announces what they have to trade. Anyone there can listen in. If you upload a file to the newsgroups or Rapidshare, you can be tracked. However, as explained above, there's no way to track downloads from newsgroups or Rapidshare. When using P2P software, your downloads can only be tracked by the people you're downloading from. For example, you have no idea what "bob373" is downloading unless he's connected to you and downloading one of your files. In fact, you wouldn't have any idea that "bob373" even exists. So now imagine that you're a record company exec. How would you know what bob373 is downloading, unless he's downloading it from you. If they were able to see you downloading, that would mean that you were downloading it from them, or from someone they authorized to distribute the file. I'm not a lawyer, but I would think that they'd have a hard time getting a guilty verdict against someone for downloading a file that they themselves made available. If they make it publicly accessible on the net, they're basically giving people permission to download it. I'd also think it would be hard to argue that they suffered damages if you downloaded and shared something that they put up for free.

2. It's not profitable for them to go after downloaders. They can argue that people who upload cost them large amounts of money in lost sales because they say there's no way to tell exactly how many copies were distributed. However in the case of a download, they know exactly how many potential lost sales there are; One. It's a waste of their time and money to try and stop downloaders. Besides, get rid of the uploaders and there's nothing to download.

Re: Prone to abuse

So, if there is no penalty for allegations made in error/jest, doesn't this mean that people will file allegations of copyright infringement for almost anything? Won't the RIAA and MPAA be taken off the net because they have stolen someones words without obtaining authorization? Won't people file dozens, hundreds of notices against the heads of these organizations and make them pay the $35 per incident to clean up their record?

What makes you think any of this applies to them? They created this deal, they get to decide who it gets used against.

Re: Re: Re: But this is EXACTLY what you wanted

I'm not interested in how you see reality. I'm interested in reality itself.

"I see all of the file "sharers" as Soviet types who just take the hard work of the creators without paying for it."

It's not taking, it's copying. There is nothing wrong with copying. If you don't like it, then don't create. No one is forcing you to. Find another job instead. Others will create perfectly fine without you and without IP.

and a soviet type wants more government. IP requires a government to exist. I want less government.

"They concoct some lame philosophy about information wanting to be free to get out of the guilt they should feel about taking someone's hard work without compensating them."

Again, it's not taking, it's copying. and no one is forced to create. If they don't want people copying them, then don't create. No one is entitled to having a government granting them a monopoly. Again, don't like it, find some other career.

"And that was fairly common in the former Soviet Union, btw. Take a look at what Stalin did to the Kulacks."

Re: Re: Re: But this is EXACTLY what you wanted

"regardless of how much it costs."

I want to charge you $1 for each time you breath air. You're not paying me. This is costing me a lot of money.

The point is that this alleged "cost" isn't really a cost at all. 'piracy' doesn't cost anyone anything. Me copying something doesn't force you to bear the expense of me making that copy. I'm the one making the copy, I'm the one bearing the expense.

Sure, you may 'lose' revenue, but if an ice cream shop opened up next door to yours, that may also cause you to lose revenue. The point here is that you are 'losing' unowed revenue. You are losing revenue that you were never entitled to. You're not entitled to a government imposed monopoly.

"The new technologies provide plenty of legal opportunities without having to toss copyright out the window"

Copy protection laws should have never existed to begin with, and they need to be destroyed regardless. I want them abolished, period.

"You have to admit, you infinite distribution thing sort of falls apparent if there isn't mainstream, widespread, and open piracy going on."

Re: Re: Re: But this is EXACTLY what you wanted

Re: Re: But this is EXACTLY what you wanted

"Hmmm ... It appears "I am the real copyright holder for the posted material" isn't one of the approved defenses. Sorry, you are out of luck. Here's a cookie."

Best damn point on this topic yet. Expect to see a LOT of abuse due to this "loophole." And if you dont think rights holders will abuse it in this way, you havent been paying attention for the past couple of decades.

Re: Who is paying for this?

Take, for example, that last one. Note that it doesn't say "work is in the public domain." It just says "work was published before 1923," meaning that the work is probably (though, with sound recordings, not definitely) in the public domain. Why not just have a defense that says "work is in the public domain"? There are works that were published after 1923 that are in the public domain -- including works that people put into the public domain, or other works that were published after 1923 and before 1978, which didn't have a copyright notice (among some other options). So why aren't those allowed as defenses?

Re:

Of course false positives will be generated, because false positives HAVE ALREADY been generated.

Anyone who has been paying attention for the last decade and who has the wit to reason their way out of a paper bag knows this. Botnets will millions of constituent systems are observed on a regular basis, and of course the controllers of those botnets may use them for whatever they want...including shuffling files around.

It is my sincere wish that they will generate hundreds of millions of false positives as quickly as possible, because I'd like to see if these large ISPs are willing to disconnect half their customer base.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: But this is EXACTLY what you wanted

"Hiding" my data through encryption does not make me guilty of anything. I encrypt my data because it's nobody else's business what I do.

Do you publish your bank statements online for everyone to read. Do you hand over your medical records to be inspected by anybody who wants to see them?

Privacy isn't about "not having anything to hide". It's about "my personal business is my own". Encrypt everything. Even the things that aren't important to you or else your privacy is just another commodity to be sold.

Re: Re: Let me swear for once.

It seems that they want to suppliment the income and come together to all get a cut of product they didn't make. so the "enforcement" allows them to accuse people and tell them to fork over $35 or we'll (knee)cap you.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collusion

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: But this is EXACTLY what you wanted

"I'd purposely run a TOR node just to screw with my ISP if this happens."

Running a TOR outlet node is not one of the allowable defenses under this ISP deal. (Not to mention that the node owner has to pay USD $35 to contest an allegation against the IP address.)

I would predict that most/all TOR endpoints connected to a major consumer ISP in the USA will simply cause their owners/admins to have their connectivity speed reduced to the point that it becomes defacto disconnection.

We're not banning TOR, we're just making it next to impossible to use. :-/

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: But this is EXACTLY what you wanted

He doesn't have faith, he is a shill. He is here to spread disinformation, confuse the issue, and prevent people from actually talking about the issues at hand.

His comment "there will be no debate about 99% of the accusations" is extremely disingenuous. He knows that the first ?4? strikes can't be protested. Before the 4th strike people will go VPN, use web lockers, or find some distributed system to use.

This whole thing is about creating fear in an attempt to make things go back to how they were. All this is going to do is drive encryption and distributed systems to the fore front of internet development. Once this software evolves, in about 2 years, they are going to be seriously boned.

Its really funny but I think neil stephenson is a bit of a prophet, he saw what is occuring now, 10 years ago.

The more I think about it, the more intensely interested I am in the question of the volume of reports which are to be submitted by Big Copyright.

In business process terms, there's little fundamental difference between the complaints which are to be submitted by Big Copyright, and a subpoena to reveal the identity behind an IP address. In both cases, the ISP has to take an IP address, date and time, and see who their records indicate was assigned the IP address at the given time. If the input data is munged in any way -- either by the copyright cops or by the ISP -- then the lookup is garbage. (Think: Timezones!) If the ISP records are messed up, the lookup is garbage. If the lookup is performed incompently, it's garbage.

Last year, in the Hurt Locker lawsuits, several ISPs argued that after handling urgent law enforcement requests for IP lookups, they only had the capacity to handle a few dozen extra "Hurt Locker" subpoenas per month.

So, either this process is not going to generate a lot of notices, or else the ISPs are going to automate the IP lookups and the results will be of much lower quality than the response to a subpoena -- this implies a LOT of innocent parties will be incorrectly associated with an infringement complaint.

(Maybe that's the ISP strategy at this point: annoy a lot of customers and tell them "The White House made us do it!")

How's that HADOPI process working out in France? By now there ought to be some metrics for the USA to study.

Re: Re: Re: But this is EXACTLY what you wanted

"The ISPs" won't be pulling any names from hats of accusing anyone. That would be silly, and might open them up to some kind of defamation suit.

No, they are simply responding to the claims made by their friendly neighborhood Big Content Blunt Instrument. "Here is a list of one million IP address that we think might possibly have infringed on something today. We totally have a very scientific and legal way to find these addresses, but it is also a trade secret, and copyrighted and patented and trademarked so we never have to tell anyone. One strike for all of those accounts, ok?"

Re:

HADOPI was hacked and the people running it were found to be lacking. They ignored data privacy laws and had truly flawed ideas about how the interwebs worked and they did no good.

Oooh we could look at the data from the Irish ISP... oh wait they sent out a stupidly large number of false accusations, enough that the Government actually had to finally look into the agreement and if it was legal because that many people finally yelled louder than the piles of cash would drown out.

Re: Re: Re: Re: But this is EXACTLY what you wanted

from what i understand, a person is not even allowed to do anything against the first 4 accusations. if anyone is accused of something, even 1 time, why would that person not want to clear their name? an accusation is an accusation, be it once or more than once. if the accusation is unjust, you should be able to challenge it. it should not cost anything to challenge any accusation either. this fee is going to be yet another 'cash cow' for companies. absolute proof should be required before any letter is sent out, not just an assumption. everyone should be assumed innocent, not guilty. it should be up to the accusers to prove guilt, not up to the accused to prove innocence. a lot of companies provide their own routers and then dont allow customers to access it, let alone change any settings. that being the case, how is anyone supposed to stop someone from hacking that connection? an IP addres indentifies an accountonly, not a person and that fact has been established in court!

Get ready to be $35 dollared to death. We are not corporations with endless funding. So I am sure in the plans are scripts pass out over wide areas, all claiming infringement most likely for the same item. From different hosting sites and IPs one claim will look like 50 instead of the single one that might or might not be.

The reason that the bulletin says "Works Published Before 1923" is because it is much simpler to only look at works before 1923. Looking at works past then, especially between the years 1968-1978, and whenever the Disney Copyright Laws were passed (the ones which allowed up to 150+ years of Copyright lifetime) are too complicated to get through, and the MPAA and RIAA are too lazy and don't want to dig through that. They just want your $35, along with Verizon.

Safe yourself the time and money and get a VPN, or something. I download plenty of Pre-1923 Public Domain (AND past 1923 Public Domain!) from IMSLP and if I am sent notification more than however many times I need to mitigation, and am sued, I will counter-sue for, say, $1,000,000 in Statutory Damages. I'll just makes something up, like the RIAA does.

Re: Let me swear for once.

And it's also very sad, because we can do nothing to protest this, because this is a contract between you and the company. By continuing to use their service, you enter an unsigned contract binding you to this agreement. It is not the law, and it is a private business rule.

This is just one way that business is beginning to rule us. Internet is a necessity now days. They are taking advantage of they're position to provide it to us. Rather than I can get a potato from any store, there is only a few stores which judge how many potatoes, what kind of potatoes, and if they feel like selling me the potato, etc. etc.

Re: But this is EXACTLY what you wanted

Meh, I really don't care how much or how little evidence they have handy. But I damned sure want my right to argue it in an actual court before being sentenced. Further, I absolutely expect anyone I'm paying every month for a service to presume my innocence (especially vs. a third party) the same the courts are supposed to.

Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re: But this is EXACTLY what you wanted

@Bob
Read learn and understand the above post it might help you long term.

This is what you and your buddies are creating. The resentment against entitlement is building. Not just so called IP, but health care, year long unemployment benefits and more. people that have to go to work every day and do the same thing over and over don't give a flying fig about your creativity. If you want to be paid for it then create something new and marvelous every day otherwise head over to Mickey Dees and flip burgers.

People not only don't care if you create or not, but if you are going to try to force them to pay for your creations they actively want you to stop creating and quietly go away.

Re: Re: But this is EXACTLY what you wanted

That is actually the next step. Death penalty for alledged infringement.

But dont worry, you can protest your innocence, so it's all good.

Just pay $2500 and pick from one of the seven options below.

i) You have video footage of a man threatening you with a gun, forcing you to be accused of infringement. This defense is only valid once as it is assumed that you will hire a small army of bodyguards after the first time.

vii) You work in a outdated gatekeeper industry, or have a close relative that does.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: But this is EXACTLY what you wanted

Nope, and unless you are a billionaire, I am guessing that your bank statements don't take a few gig at a time to transfer. Just encoding, or just using TOR, or just using VPN, or just using a proxy isn't by itself proof of anything. However, combinations of things, bandwidth usage, packet size, balance of incoming and outgoing, and all those things can make you look bad.

You cannot P2P without exposing your actions in some manner. Without exposure, others cannot connect to you, and you cannot connect to them. It's pretty simple, really. The data patterns, the ports, the type of traffic, the size, and plenty of other things can make you stand out.

I know that pirating types can keep tossing out the "but...but... TOR!" style defences, but in the end, the data has to move, and the data isn't small.

How long will this agreement last ?
until ISPs realise customers can cancel direct debits.
customers take them to court for
1 not providing the service paid for
2 discontinuing the service while expecting payment.
is the above not against comsumer law in USA.

Resale Value For Digital Music Will Help To Reduce Piracy

With this crackdown on piracy, I think people are going to start looking elsewhere for ways to get cheaper music. Providers like iTunes and Amazon.com sell music legally, but consumers want alternatives--they're looking for inexpensive music outside of existing retailers. I think the future lies with companies like ReDigi -- a used digital music marketplace launching this fall. They will allow consumers to sell their unwanted digital music online-- and buy digital music (both used and new) at a massive discount. ReDigi is basically acting like a used record store, giving digital music a resale value--something consumers completely lost when tangible media such as CDs were replaced by digital music. Keep an eye out, ReDigi is a game changer.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: But this is EXACTLY what you wanted

I have an idea on how to totally screw with RIAA and the MPAA. Everyone hosts one DVD or CD and then shares it with only one person at a time. I mean if I can lend a CD or DVD to a friend, in person, why not do the same thing online. Its an easy bit of software. As long as the disk is in the machine thats doing the sharing. If this is done as a huge distributed rental service it would wipe out netflix, redbox, and all online payperview systems.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

and name me just one example (in the U.S.) where a false infringement accuser has received a criminal record for false accusations. Just one ...

The rule is that it doesn't happen. Even if you could name one (highly doubtful), by and large it doesn't happen. False infringement accusations happen, but a criminal record for raising these false accusations ...

Not to mention corporate representatives maybe shielded from this sort of liability through their limited liability nonsense.

If you're in a hole, stop digging. That's the lesson the MAFIAA apparently never learned as kids.

This is idiotic and is going to make the labels' problems much worse. I predict a massive switchover to an encrypted Freenet model, where every node on the network hosts data but has no idea what it is and there's no way to tell whether a node is a source, destination or relay. No copyright holder would be able to make ANY case for filesharing under that system. Brilliant plan guys. Motivate everyone to switch to a model where copyright infringement becomes impossible to EVER prove.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: But this is EXACTLY what you wanted

Actually, many of the people here are shills for Big Search, Big Hardware and Big Piracy. Mike gets plenty o cash from Google, a bunch of billionaires who don't want to share anything with the content creators. It would be a mistake to think that copyright holders are the only big, bad corporations in this game.

And yes, I do have faith that the system will probably be better than most of the criminal justice system. That's not saying much, but it is something.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: But this is EXACTLY what you wanted

Of course rule of law matters. But I find it amazing how the cheap-ass couch potatoes love to celebrate the ideal of having an endless string of judges split endless legal hairs when it serves their purpose. But when the copyright holders ask for some enforcement of the copyright laws, the cheapass couch potatoes start screaming that it's actually wrong to follow the law and the laws are bad.

Be careful what you wish for. Everyone here said that the $150,000 fines were too high. Voila! This is an entirely lawful process that enforces the copyright laws. Welcome to the "rule of law."

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: But this is EXACTLY what you wanted

The only thing I use BitTorrent for is to download Linux releases. I only download Linux releases that don't carry a price, like Slackware or Arch.

When I do that sort of very, very legal downloading, I get connections from other "P2P" people downloading the same Linux release.

What's my defence? Will I be accused and have to pay $35?

Also, I run a web server and SMTP server on my basement machine. I have no idea who makes connections to the web server. Will this open me up to accusations? If so, why? Cyveillance regularly trawls my web site, and they have probably determined I'm not sharing anything copyrighted by anyone else. Go ask.

This is an amazingly ill-conceived plan, with so many unintended consequences it makes my head spin. You are un-American for advocating such a rights-violating, cartel-enabled system.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: But this is EXACTLY what you wanted

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: But this is EXACTLY what you wanted

Oooh my. How extremely soviet of you. When the Soviets didn't like someone who spoke in unpopular ways, they sent them off to Siberia to be re-educated. In America, the tradition is to let each person create whatever they like.

So if you don't like whatever I create, don't download it. Don't make a copy. Just ignore it and do your own thing.

If the price is too high, just move on and choose something that you like that's priced accordingly. That will send a real message to the businessdroids who run the content industry. Don't steal it. Just like something that fits your budget.

And let me say that Big Content has nothing to do with the Health Care folks or unemployment in general. If anything, you could recognize that copyright protects the big and the small equally. If you create a cool video, the law protects Hollywood from taking it without getting your permission. It's the copyfighters that want to leave the little guy without any power.

Re: Re: Re: Re: But this is EXACTLY what you wanted

"It's not taking, it's copying. There is nothing wrong with copying. If you don't like it, then don't create. No one is forcing you to. Find another job instead. Others will create perfectly fine without you and without IP."

GONG! Sorry. I like the content I get from Big Content. I like the big stars in Hollywood and the huge blockbuster movies with too many extras and too many special effects. I'm happy to pay only $10 to enjoy entertainment that cost more than $100m to create. I think it's a great deal.

And yes, I'm grateful that major news organizations send reporters to wars and other unpleasant parts of the world because that means I learn more about the world. I don't want to get my war news from the bloggers who work for the Pentagon.

So I don't want the system to fail. And unfortunately it means that I need to argue with cheapass, selfish people like you. There's plenty of free content out there. If you want open source writing, it's yours for free. Yet you seem to think that you have a right to destroy my business model and I'm the one who's supposed to find something else to do? If you don't like it, spend your money elsewhere.

In other words, you're asking people to frame others for a crime

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: But this is EXACTLY what you wanted

I shouldn't have to pay a cent to argue my innocence. It is my right to do so. If you think ive broken a law, the responsibility falls to you to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that I have actually done so. Anything less is a complete gutting and tarnishing of our legal system.

Re: Re: Re: Re: But this is EXACTLY what you wanted

If you want to be proven guilty in the court of law, I'm sure you're welcome to bring a law suit for libel, slander or some other reason. Then you can pay for half of the legal bills.

Really, you've been downloading files for too long. Justice is not something that can be downloaded for free. Law suits and jury trials have to be paid for by someone and in many cases, that's you the taxpayer. I don't want to pay for endless cookie cutter jury trials and I don't think that 99% of the people caught by this system will want to pay for their share of the legal costs either. They'll be guilty and they'll just be looking for a deal.

I know that there will be mistakes and technical glitches, but I'm sure that this system will be fairer than any other part of the justice machinery. That's not saying much, but it's something.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

In very narrow cases there could be consequences.
If any Attorney General goes after any plaintiff that potentially misuses the law these are the consequences for it.

TITLE 17 > CHAPTER 5 > § 506. Criminal offensesQuote:

(c) Fraudulent Copyright Notice. — Any person who, with fraudulent intent, places on any article a notice of copyright or words of the same purport that such person knows to be false, or who, with fraudulent intent, publicly distributes or imports for public distribution any article bearing such notice or words that such person knows to be false, shall be fined not more than $2,500.

So there are some circumstances where people claiming things could get in trouble, but you are right individuals have little recourse. They could probably counter sue for damages but that is about all they can do, so the only real penalties would be some little financial loss if it is successful which is a big if and that is the answer to his question, in a best case scenario the guy would be charged by the AG and get a criminal record and $2500 in fines or a very large damage claim to pay, but probably is not going to happen anytime soon since no one was ever charged with that crime that I know of, and I never heard of anybody winning damages from accusations about copyrights, but note that this is not to say that there is no instances just that I'm ignorant of them if they exist.

Re: Re: Re: But this is EXACTLY what you wanted

"Oh right. That's your justification? I wouldn't be surprised if almost 100% of the most popular items on the p2p networks are available for purchase. "

Typical straw man argument. Where was it said ONLY the "most popular" items on file sharing? You added that, to completely ignore the actual argument (that MOST stuff that has been created is NOT available through legal means AT ALL), then use it to say "See! Amazon and iTunes sell this stuff! You are just a freeloader!"

And its not a justification, its a reason. This is why you shilltards are a bunch of foaming-at-the-mouth clueless wonders.

Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: But this is EXACTLY what you wanted

Really, you've been downloading files for too long.

That is quite an accusation there buddy. Did you file your accusation with an ISP against AC there?
Or wait, right, you have NO PROOF, just like the RIAA has shown to in 95% of their cases. (I don't have a citation for that, but I am using your method of pulling stats out of my ass since you seem to feel it is okay)

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: But this is EXACTLY what you wanted

i just have to lol at you, because you dont know even the diference of crack and open, but that was the first thing that i thought and belive me i think i can get around 100 ways to make people fall in the 6 strike without them even noticing, so that lets you know that poeple with true knowlage fo this technologies can easily use this law to thier advantage( i dont concider one of those but even if i acan find 100 ways of doing so imagine the most expereinced poeple ), but is good to know that poeple without knowlage of what they are talking telle the average joe that they are safe because si so funny ^^

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: But this is EXACTLY what you wanted

Fuck OFF MAFIAA
and if i get into any issues of harrassment for sharing my art which i made on TPB i will sue your ass for everything i can as high as possible.
and if i win i willu se a lot of the cash to help outother punk rock musicians in maine.

Re: Re: Let me swear for once.

Ok, so it's not a law, it's a pre-law. And I'm sure if pushed could be found unconstitutional, but who has the money to push these things in front of a judge against the MAFIAA cartel?

Your comment about dial-up highlights another problem with the US, the lack of free market. The land where they say that free market is everything doesn't actually have a free market. Otherwise the ISPs wouldn't even dream of pissing off a large part of their customers.
What would happen if these ISPs get the message from the MAFIAA cartel that almost their entire IP-block is found to be infringing, would they cut them off, and thus condemning their own company? No customers, no income. No income, no company.

"It would be a mistake to think that copyright holders are the only big, bad corporations in this game."

IP is not, and never was, about the artist. It was initially proposed because middlemen wanted it and it continues to exist because the middlemen want it. It's about allowing big corporations to steal from artists and to steal from the public (ie: through copy protection length extensions and unethical copy protection lengths that big corporations asked for because they have no soul). Big corporations steal our ability to distribute content via broadcasting and cableco monopolies and via threatening independent venues that want to host independent artists with expensive legal threats and they steal their rights to do what they want with the content from the artists if those artists are to have their content distributed across these platforms that the government grants them monopolies to. IP was never about the content creators, it was never about the public, it was only about the parasite middlemen.

bob: "OH NO! I CAN'T COMPREHEND THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN PHYSICAL AND DIGITAL! I WORSHIP CORPORATIONS AND THE LAW! THEY CAN DO NO WRONG! I CANNOT CONCEIVE OF THEM BEING WRONG SO I THROW UNFOUNDED ACCUSATIONS AT ANYONE WHO DISAGREES WITH ME! IF IT WORKS FOR MY SUPERIORS, SURELY IT CAN WORK FOR ME! EVEN THOUGH THE SUPREME COURT HAS RULED THAT INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT! I'LL JUST IGNORE WHAT OUR OWN JUSTICE SYSTEM HAS SAID! CORPORATE PROFITS MUST BE PROTECTED AT ALL COSTS, EVEN IF IT MEANS DESTROYING THE COMMON PEOPLE! I HAVE NO CAPACITY TO LEARN AND CHANGE BECAUSE I'M PAID TO BE A SHILL! FOR ME TO ADMIT TO BEING WRONG WOULD DESTROY THE WORLD! WAHHHHH!!!"

I will repeat what I've said before. I think it's time that the term "piracy" no longer be used - it's a false flag and a means of misdirection. The act should be called what it really is - sharing. Let's see the MAFIAA try to explain to people why they're trying to stop people from sharing, which we're all taught as kids is the right thing to do. As long as we keep using their loaded terms, it's harder for the truth to spread and be known. It's not "piracy." It's sharing. And sharing is caring.

Now, bob, I want either a complete chain of causality showing exactly how the sharing of a specific file has harmed a specific artist at a specific time in a specific way, backed up with empirical non-industry data, or a complete retraction of everything you have ever said on this site. Now. Choosing to do neither is admitting you are wrong and I am right.

Re: Re: Copyright misuse

Well thank you. I don't have a problem with this sort of multi-strike system for repeat infringers in general, but I would like to see a little more process for those accused. For instance, I believe you can't challenge anything until your fourth strike. That doesn't seem right to me. I should be able to challenge any strike. The $35 thing doesn't bother me. You get that back if you win. That seems fair. The limited number of defenses is ridiculous, and I think it's copyright misuse. As Mike pointed out, you can't even use the defense of public domain. That's unbelievable. The guilty until proven innocent thing doesn't bother me. You could say the same about traffic tickets. It's not that you're guilty, it's that there is evidence against you--evidence you can challenge. You're still presumed innocent.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: But this is EXACTLY what you wanted

I really don't give a shit what your business model is. And not everybody agrees with you on what things should be priced. So get over yourself.
You can use any business model you want. The minute you start trying to get laws passed to mess with the internet, to restrict other people, or to trample any of my freedoms, you may as well just go play hide and go fuck yourself. Your business model deserves ZERO protections. If its a crappy model, it should properly fail, not have laws back it up.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: But this is EXACTLY what you wanted

"You illegally obtain something from an artist for free that you're supposed to pay for"

So...am I correct that you must made the 100% certain assertion that MrWilson is violating copyright, without any proof, nor any reason to suspect so, nor any kind of admission from him?

If so, then you, sir, are a perfect example of the "assume guilt first, prove innocence second (for a fee)" school of justice. You opinion is unsavory in a nation that espouses the principle of "innocent until proven guilty."

You embody the very reason we choose to push back against draconian laws that prop up an outdated recording industry that feigns support of artists.

Re: Re: Re: Re: But this is EXACTLY what you wanted

"What do you know? iTunes and Amazon are either selling them or will be selling them soon."

Sure, but in all regions? Because when I try to access legit content while I'm abroad, all I get are "Not available in your region" errors.

Is the Latvian version of the film available in the US? The English version in Latvia? You see, troll, there is much content out there that is NOT available to people through legitimate channels.

So, to get Spanish content, I bought some Disney DVDs in Spain. When I got home, my legitimately purchased 20 euro DVDs did not work in my DVD player nor my computer. So I told my computer that it was in Spain, sat the kids in front of the 14" screen instead of the 44 incher, and I played the DVD. There were 10 minutes of commercials that I didn't buy, but had to watch prior to the film. Now my PC won't play US DVDs. I'm no longer certain the content industry has my the satisfaction of legit customers as a goal.

Re: Re: Re: Copyright misuse

I don't have a problem with this sort of multi-strike system for repeat infringers in general, but I would like to see a little more process for those accused.

Surprisingly, I agree wholeheartedly. I do think the "multi-strike system" for repeat infringers is a waste of time, but I'm not actually against it, as long as the process is fair and outright disconnection is not an option.

For instance, I believe you can't challenge anything until your fourth strike. That doesn't seem right to me. I should be able to challenge any strike.

You're correct, and it absolutely is not right. Say, you receive four warnings, but all four of them are justified - say, for the sake of argument, that every one was authorized by the copyright holders (unbeknownst to their lawyers). You can't even notify the ISP that the use was authorized until you challenge the "fifth strike." Furthermore, a successful challenge doesn't affect anything but the last warning - so if you get another one, you're back to your fifth strike.

To be consistent with copyright law, it would be better if every single warning was a kind of "mini DMCA" notice. Of course, Big Content wants to do away with the DMCA anyway, so it's no surprise they're bulldozing ISP's into something a lot less fair.

The $35 thing doesn't bother me. You get that back if you win. That seems fair.

It only be truly fair if the subscriber was billed after the challenge was unsuccessful.

The limited number of defenses is ridiculous, and I think it's copyright misuse. As Mike pointed out, you can't even use the defense of public domain.

Agreed. What people would have to do is take the ISP (and copyright holders) to court at that point.

The guilty until proven innocent thing doesn't bother me. You could say the same about traffic tickets. It's not that you're guilty, it's that there is evidence against you--evidence you can challenge. You're still presumed innocent.

What makes it "guilty until proven innocent" is that you can't challenge the evidence against you. In fact, I don't believe this plan actually allows you to even see the evidence. So, for example, if the "owner" wasn't legitimately the owner of the copyright (as in the Righthaven and dajaz1 cases, and to an extent the "Far Cry" case), there would be no way for anyone to know that, or challenge it.

If you could, then it wouldn't bother me so much, either.

Having said all that - even if the above proposed changes took place, the whole thing would still be a waste of time. ISP's have been sending out notices to customers for years. If "education" really was the solution, filesharing would have already stopped. And of course, I think fighting non-commercial piracy is a bad idea in any case.

Re: In other words, you're asking people to frame others for a crime

Bob,

While, taken out of context, it would be a low point, IN context it is not.

What they propose is flooding the system with false positives such that no one can be proven guilty and your 5-step cudgel falls apart. It's the "I'm Spartacus" defense against your crappy enforcement rule.

If the system is flooded thoroughly with false positives, the entire process would need to be thrown out. In context, what is proposed above is civil disobedience in defense of innocent people, not "framing innocent people".

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: But this is EXACTLY what you wanted

"GONG! Sorry. I like the content I get from Big Content. I like the big stars in Hollywood and the huge blockbuster movies with too many extras and too many special effects. I'm happy to pay only $10 to enjoy entertainment that cost more than $100m to create. I think it's a great deal."

That explains a lot (besides being a shill, I mean). You ARE the lowest common denominator, and therefore mentally defective (as long as we're spouting opinion now).

"I don't want to get my war news from the bloggers who work for the Pentagon. "

Seriously? WTF are you talking about now?

"So I don't want the system to fail."

Too late.

"Yet you seem to think that you have a right to destroy my business model and I'm the one who's supposed to find something else to do? "

I did not destroy your business model. Technology advanced, and you failed to keep up. Goodbye and good riddance.

"If you don't like it, spend your money elsewhere."

I already have for over five years now. Instead of whining like a little bitch, I adapted. Try it, you might like it.

You're going to have to find a new way to enjoy your entertainment anyway, as you cannot stop the progress of technology, no matter how hard you try, or how much money you spend.

Why? because we are infinitely smarter than you, and always one step ahead.

I look forward to thoroughly tromping you (technologically speaking, of course).

Re: Re: Re: Re: Copyright misuse

I do think the "multi-strike system" for repeat infringers is a waste of time

One thing I'd like to mention here. Even aside from the fairness of the rules, cutting repeat infringers off from the internet (or even limiting their bandwidth) is a terrible idea from a content producer's standpoint.

Put simply, "repeat infringers" are also the biggest customers. Every objective study shows that pirates buy more music than non-pirates. (Whether they would buy more if piracy wasn't an option, is beside the point; the point is they're correlated.)

And how do people purchase movies, music, etc? Using the internet. Most consumers buy tracks from places like iTunes, or watch movies through Netflix; even those that purchase CD's mostly do that through the internet nowadays.

So, if you're cutting off (or limiting) access to pirated material, you're also cutting off (or limiting) access to legitimate sources of content. You're turning people who were both pirates and customers, into people who are neither.

The only people who will remain as customers are those who do not pirate - and those people buy far less than half of your product. You're guaranteeing a significant drop in revenue.

Re: Resale Value For Digital Music Will Help To Reduce Piracy

ReDigi

I give them about two seconds before they're sued by everyone. Under the right of first sale, those lawsuits shouldn't win, but unfortunately, I think they might. There's a weird consensus among the technologically challenged (including most judges) that digital is somehow in a separate category than the "real world."

I forget who said it (Eric Goldman maybe?) but the U.S. has essentially two sets of copyright laws: the internet, and everything else, with internet laws being much more strict.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

These are only cases where the person claiming copyright on the material, doesn't actually hold the copyright. So, for example, it could be used against Righthaven, but probably not against Universal.

Most "false accusations" don't involve a fraudulent copyright. In most cases, the plaintiff holds a valid copyright, they just sue the wrong person, or the defendant's use is outside the protections of copyright law (e.g. fair use).

If the copyright owners actually take you to court, you can countersue for attorney's fees and some damages. But if it's just a DMCA takedown notice, or one of these notices to the ISP, then you pretty much have no legal recourse whatsoever.

Re: Re: But this is EXACTLY what you wanted

suddenly there isn't all that free distribution everyone was crowing about. All of a suddenly, infinite distribution goes away, replaced once again with a "pay for hosting" model that will make things somewhat less free again.

You're acting like this is a good thing.

What about the content producers who like these free distribution models? The ones who don't want to pay for shipping physical product in trucks all across the country, or paying postage to ship a DVD directly to users?

All the commercial video game companies that use P2P software to distribute patches? The Linux community that uses P2P for their distributions? The indie musicians and filmmakers that distribute their music via P2P?

Why on Earth would anyone who distributes content want a restricted "pay for hosting" model, rather than one that works and is free?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: But this is EXACTLY what you wanted

Copyright isn't a right. It's a government-granted privilege.

So no, if you call copyright a "right" and think it's comparable to free speech, I don't care about that "right."

Copyright is an exclusive privilege. You can't spread copyright to secure everyone's rights. Copyright is about limiting the rights of the public to the public domain, which is the natural state of all works based on the nature of the analog hole and human communication. Once anything is uttered, it cannot be uncommunicated or uncopied or undone.

The artistic toothpaste does not go back in the tube. If you can't figure out a business model that works upon that principle rather than one that lives in denial about the fact that that principle is a fact, you're in the wrong business.

But the artist reference is a red herring. You're arguing for corporate rights, not artists' rights. Artists still have the ability to make more art. Corporations and their lobbyists, who treat artists like factory workers and menial laborers, are the only ones threatened by a loss or violation of copyright.

This is laughably false. We have Google ads on the site, and we're actually considering removing them because they don't make shit. Last month they made less than one-tenth of our bandwidth costs. At this point, the only reason we keep them is because someone claimed that it helps Google search your site faster. I'm not sure I believe that, but... why mess with it.

Other than that, Google once sponsored an event we did, over a year ago, and the amount of money we got out of that was tiny.

That's all the money we've ever received from Google. It's tiny. Not even a blip on our income statement.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: But this is EXACTLY what you wanted

And I like the content that comes from smaller distribution channels not controlled by Big Content. The Studio monopoly was destroyed for a reason.

"I like the big stars in Hollywood and the huge blockbuster movies with too many extras and too many special effects."

Then pay them directly and stop telling other people how they can spend their time and money.

" I'm happy to pay only $10 to enjoy entertainment that cost more than $100m to create. I think it's a great deal."

And others don't because your US $10 = too much money for the rest of the world, where their incomes are dissimilar to yours. Big content lost control of distribution. Netflix is a great competitor. Hulu has free stuff but with ads. There are streaming channels that serve UK, Brazilian, Japanese, Ukrainian, and other global interests. All of these can't be served by Hollywood. Get over it.

"And yes, I'm grateful that major news organizations send reporters to wars and other unpleasant parts of the world because that means I learn more about the world"
And some Twitter accounts have more views and spread the news far faster than those central channels of info.

"So I don't want the system to fail. "

If the system can't adapt to the new reality, it will fail. That's nothing more than Darwinism at work.

"Yet you seem to think that you have a right to destroy my business model and I'm the one who's supposed to find something else to do"

No ones destroying your model. You can continue to do things the exact same way if you want. Just don't go crying because others don't feel the same need to pay you exorbitant amounts that you charge because they can find the same thing for a cheaper price. That's called competition. Look into it.

" If you don't like it, spend your money elsewhere."

That's what economists call consumer surplus. Maybe you should find ways to make the content more valuable instead of thinking up ways to swindle people. That may work better for you.

A small random quote

"We had to struggle with the old enemies of peace - business and financial monopoly, speculation, reckless banking, class antagonism, sectionalism, war profiteering. They had begun to consider the Government of the United States as a mere appendage to their own affairs. We know now that Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob. Never before in all our history have these forces been so united against one candidate as they stand today. They are unanimous in their hate for me, and I welcome their hatred."
-FDR Madison square Garden, 1936

It would be a mistake to think that copyright holders are the only big, bad corporations in this game.

They are. They've been pressuring ISPs since Napster was sued into oblivion. They also want to change civil lawsuits to criminal in the hopes of pushing enforcement of copyright off of their budget sheets and onto the judicial system. They do a lot more than any individual can do themselves in terms of keeping blockades to innovation.

Actually, many of the people here are shills for Big Search, Big Hardware and Big Piracy. Mike gets plenty o cash from Google, a bunch of billionaires who don't want to share anything with the content creators.

They're not entitled to income. Unless you work for ASCAP, BMI or SESAC, then I guess suing the likes of Yahoo for having a platform so that people can have free utilities to share with friends, then it makes sense.

Just a side note, why is it that every argument seems to end in some kind of accusation with Google making money from ads? What is so bad about having advertisements as to increase third party liability for people that just want to write a blog, run a website, or shop in peace? Do you have a serious problem with Big Content not putting up media because they only want what they control to sell or do you just not like to see people sharing media and discussing the various new movies, music, and games that they enjoy?

Re: In other words, you're asking people to frame others for a crime

Actually he didn't ask anyone to do anything. He pointed out that all these were possibilities. In other words, he was warning what could happen.

Really, do you think he supports Scientologist dirty tricks? Attacking internet kiosks?? If he suggested spoofing ip's of families and relatives of RIAA employees, you might have a case, but pointing out how it could hurt businesses he likes and help groups he doesn't seems like the opposite of calling for it.